News
Tesla’s Battery strategy is in preparation for two of its most anticipated vehicles
Tesla has continued to attempt to improve its battery packs and cells despite being the industry leader in EV battery tech. Interestingly enough, the electric car company located in Silicon Valley has had some of the best vehicles in terms of EV range in the past ten years. While other car companies were struggling to equip their attempts at electric cars with 100 miles of usable range, Tesla was and has been pushing the envelope since the original Roadster in 2008.
But even though the company has facilitated several vehicles in its fleet to have over 300 miles of range, and one with over 400 miles, it hasn’t been enough to let Tesla’s battery engineers rest. Even though the Model S Long Range Plus configuration packs 402 miles of electric range, which is plenty for most drivers, Tesla has several cars in the works that pack considerably more range than that. These are also not your “run of the mill” EVs, either. They are the Tri-Motor Cybertruck and the next-gen Roadster.
Batteries are what drive an EV to be all that it can be. They are responsible for the range and the performance of the car, along with the motors and engineering of the chassis and body. However, battery tech is ultimately what decides if a vehicle is going to be a successful electric car or just another one to add to the list of underperforming automobiles.
The key to building a great electric car, like anything else, is starting at the foundation. When you want to make a great pizza, you start with great dough. When you want to make a great EV, you start with the battery cells.
The problem with batteries is that there are no two cells that are the same when the materials that are used within are concerned. Not only that, but sometimes the elements that make some batteries stable and help with energy density are controversial. This is the case with cobalt.
But before I go into a spiel about Tesla’s use of cobalt and how the company responsibly sources it, let’s stay on topic.
Tesla’s battery teams in Canada, led by Jeff Dahn at Dalhousie University, released a new paper this week that indicated an electrolyte solution could contribute to increased battery energy density, and could lead to an extended lifespan.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
The solution would be used to combat the effects of degradation, and would ultimately lead to a longer life span and increased energy density. Enter the Tri-Motor Cybertruck and Roadster.
Both of these cars have range ratings that are well above the Model S Long Range Plus variant. The Cybertruck’s Tri-Motor will have 500+ miles of range, and the Roadster will have 620 miles.
However, Tesla’s current cells are not capable of holding this amount of range. If the batteries are not capable of holding excessive amounts of energy density, they will not perform in the fashion that they were intended. Therefore, Tesla has to continue developing its cells to promote longer-range driving and a long lifespan.
Starting with the Cybertruck, which has an estimated range of “500+ miles,” according to Tesla’s website. Currently, Tesla does not have a battery pack released that is capable of that kind of range, so the batteries must improve. The Tri-Motor setup will certainly help with the towing capacity and acceleration. Still, the battery pack within the Cybertruck has to work efficiently to not only supply power to those motors, but it also has to maintain energy so it can keep range at a reasonable level.
With the Roadster, things are slightly different. This car will (more than likely) not be towing things or have excessive amounts of cargo in the back, so there isn’t as much involved with maintaining range through laborious work. However, it is one of the fastest cars ever made, and Elon Musk has said in the past that the range of the Roadster will be over 1,000 kilometers or 621 miles.
Ultimately, the development of Tesla’s cells has to continue to improve. Obviously, the battery packs for both of the vehicles that were talked about in this article will have battery packs that are larger than the 100 kWh packs that Tesla puts in the Performance variants of the Model S and Model X. But there is a chance that Tesla equips the Cybertruck and Roadster with smaller, more energy-dense batteries like the 2170 cells that are used in the Model 3 and Model Y.
Lucid’s reveal of the 517-mile range that their new EV, the Air, has, certainly must have lit a fire under the rear-ends of Tesla’s battery engineers. Tesla has had a reputation of being the EV company with the best range, and now that Lucid “technically” has the title for that, even though the car isn’t in production, Tesla will likely be gearing up for a takeback of that label.
Tesla’s battery strategy from here on out will be interesting considering other auto companies have proven they are capable of competing in terms of EV range. There is still the fact that Tesla is actually producing these cars on a massive scale and we know that the company’s cars can perform, we don’t know this about the other vehicles yet.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.
Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.
Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.
.@POTUS: We told Zelensky, ‘You can do whatever you want to Russia, but don’t hit the refineries because that’s a world problem.’ And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel. He better damn well stop. https://t.co/CdRlMcPlKr
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 10, 2026
SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.
Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.
Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?
As your European customers, we are watching you.— Radosław Sikorski 🇵🇱🇪🇺 (@sikorskiradek) October 14, 2026
The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.
SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.
Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.